Extra Punctuation: What Is the Matter with You People?

[ThunderCavalier]

I kinda agree with Yahtzee here.

If you're going to have something as shocking as the MW1 nuke scene, or have the ability to do something shocking like killing a child, it better have some significance to the story and not be merely for shock value, and it has to be done in moderation.

For example, the MW1 nuke scene was so gripping and immersed everyone because you genuinely did not see it coming. It was one of the first games that tapped at the FPS perspective and told you, "Hey, since we're aiming for a more realistic approach, we're also going to throw in the fact that you can, and most likely will, die. Enjoy!"

But they took away the wrong message from that, and now it's simply there because it was good in MW1, and they're shamelessly trying to recreate the hype and controversy the first one created, ironically killing the entire point the first one had.

And seriously, do we really need to kill children in video games? I can understand having the 'choice' to do so, but at the same time, was it really a 'choice' that needed to be made? I can understand freedom and whatnot, but when you start falling into the uncanny valley and wanting to see children slowly suffocate to death in chemicals or screw children, then this isn't necessarily a demand for freedom as it is more a cry for help and mental rehabilitation.

 

[CodeOrange]

The thing is, that you just don't put it into the game. Obsidian Entertainment was smart enough to veto those... creatures in New Vegas. Let's just hope that they are given the green light on their own remake of Skyrim - the one that's not shit.

End of argument.

Speaking of moderation, wouldn't it be nice if dragons were put in moderation in the game? Yknow, if you didn't fucking kill one at level 2 ten minutes into the game? Hell, we would have gotten a much nicer opening sequence if dragons weren't so immodestly plugged into it like a subscribe banner on the videos of youtube parters.

But I suppose you all aren't actually playing Skyrim, but rather continuing the epic adventure of mindless wandering from where you left off in F3 or Oblivion, because that was a really good game.

 

[xqxm]

Here's a conundrum for you, straight from Fallout: New Vegas.

Let's consider two characters, Mr. House, the ruler of the strip, and Pete, the child responsible for retelling the story of the Boomers in their museum

Mr. House defended Las Vegas from something like 70 atomic warheads, preventing untold damage and loss of life. He also has grand plans for humanity, keeping himself alive indefinately by way of an advanced life support system, with the goal of rebuilding society, and eventually colonizing other planets.

He can by killed, defenseless and frail as he is after about 200 years in stasis. You can even disconnect him from his computer network and leave him to rot, a prisoner in his own body until he is finally killed by microbial infections months later.

Pete, on the other hand has no such bright thoughts about humanity. He makes it clear that he regards anyone and everyone outside Nellis AFB as savages to be shot on sight. He further describes that the ultimate goal for him and his people is to restore planes so as to carpet bomb people they consider to be savages, i.e. everyone else.

It's clear that these genocidal thoughts have been ingrained from the very moment he was born, and it's highly unlikely he'll grow up as anything less than a xenophobic mass murderer.

Him, you cannot kill.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I didn't like the children in Fallout 3, because they freely got to piss you off and yet you could never do anything about it...

I just realised this isn't the first time I've quoted you recently to counter one of your points. Huh.

Anyway, you're wrong - Child At Heart perk. You sacrifice one perk slot(hardly a huge deal), and you turn that town into the best place on the wasteland.

...???? What are you talking about??????

 

[Do4600]

I think they should just treat it like they did in Fallout 2 [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Child_Killer] , of course that's usually my response to everything. In Fallout 2 if you killed a child even by accident you got the "Childkiller" reputation perk, or rather anti-perk. Basically it gives you heavy penalties to anything regarding social skills because nobody is willing to associate with you. You also have a chance to encounter parties of heavily geared bounty hunters which attempt to kill you. Instead of making children invincible as in Fallout 3 and Skyrim, or in the European release of Fallout 2, invisible, just make the killing of children essentially game breaking in it's difficulty curve. This way they can be killed by the dragons and NPC splash magic and not break immersion, and anybody who actually wants to kill children in the game for kicks is forced to play with severally curtailed freedoms hiding like the rat they are in shadows and is chased ceaselessly and tirelessly to the ends of the earth and eventually cornered by bounty hunters and slain. This way you maintain immersion by making the solution to the problem a logical series of steps in game instead of the leap of logic that is:"Every child has god-mode on".

Of course this will never be implemented by any game designer because just letting players kill children regardless of the in-game consequences would probably draw so much media that a U.S. Presidential Candidate could probably win an election solely on the promise of banning the game.

Might fix a mod or two though.

Are not all lives of equal worth?

No, no they are not, they are not of equal worth, this is evidenced by the fact that Bethesda won't let you end some of those lives.

 

[xqxm]

No, no they are not, they are not of equal worth, this is evidenced by the fact that Bethesda won't let you end some of those lives.

That's indeed how it would seem, and if you ask me, that's a far more sinister and disturbing prospect than just straight up letting you murder some kids. I understand that the games industry has the eyes of the sensationalist media upon them and really don't need to "child murdering simulator"-stamp upon them, but i personally fail to see the difference between murdering two equally defenseless and weak human beings.

 

[Weentastic]

I can't say that killing children is important to me in games. What is important is consistency and how a game builds the world that we occupy. Skyrim is supposed to be a game about choice and freedom. It frustrates me that they went out of their way to remove choices for me. Its not any more frustrating or stupid that I can't kill a child for an arbitrary reason than I can't kill many characters because "their important". Yahtzee seems to be really determined to declare himself more righteous than us, especially when he's such a proponent of games not jerking the player around during cutscenes and whatnot to make a point. But it's ok, i still like his videos.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

How about not putting children in games at all, if you can't handle them dying in a virtual world.

Would be better option than making them immortal.

In Assassin's Creed, where you can kill any person in the world, hostile or not (though you are penalized for killing innocent civilians), there are no children in the game's world.

So yeah, I agree.

 

[abhi]

Killing children in a game (as a modder, game designer or the morbid person wants to enact that in games) is something you do when you are at the fag end of your creativity.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I didn't like the children in Fallout 3, because they freely got to piss you off and yet you could never do anything about it...

I just realised this isn't the first time I've quoted you recently to counter one of your points. Huh.

Anyway, you're wrong - Child At Heart perk. You sacrifice one perk slot(hardly a huge deal), and you turn that town into the best place on the wasteland.

...???? What are you talking about??????

Was the quoting and the bolding not enough?

Since you didn't elaborate on what you were saying, I think that's kind of a given.

Yes, you can do something about the obnoxious kids in fallout, use the Child at Heart perk, they become your best mates instantly and that town becomes awesome.

I specifically recall getting this and using it and yet still not liking the brats.

 

[RedMage]

The best part about this article isn't what it says but what it doesn't say.

Innovation takes effort. It speaks to the market when a "shocking moment" can make a corporation go big and then refuse to make any more games. It's a consumer market, not an ethical or even an artistic market. I'll always advocate the art of games but not everyone sees it that way.

Skyrim is a touchy subject. There's something to be said (or left unsaid) about mods to kill children but you have to look at the flip side. Why are children the only creatures in the game that are immune to daggers to the face? Games(specifically fantasy and scifi settings) are often ethical explorations. Who made the decision to limit a role played characters individuality by removing friendly fire from children? While I wouldn't be killing children any time soon I think the decision should be left to the public.

 

[Mopbucket]

Okay Yahtzee, go ahead and call me a sicko that fantasizes about killing children, because that simply means you're a sicko that fantasizes about killing adults. You can't have it both ways. Either simulated violence is okay or it isn't.

My argument is simply that simulated violence does not relate to real world violence in ANY way, shape, or form. Apparently you think it does, yet you still commit other horrific crimes in a game world. I doubt you can justify that, so I don't think you can legitimately criticize these modders.

Oh, and the little shock bit about ploughing children for realism is obviously a feeble strawman. We don't play Skyrim for realism. If you hadn't noticed, there's freaking dragons in it, for crying out loud.

 

[Kendall Coombs]

Well worded as (seemingly) always, and while ive agreed with probably 98% of the opinions ive seen from you on here, I cant quite agree here. Realism doesnt have to boil down to just "can i kill em or can i not". One example, u pull an arrow back in ur bow, or charge up soem area of effect type spell to hit a hostile target (who is presumably above the age of 18) but a kid was running by around the corner u did not see. in either case u acidentally hit said child by mistake. You can now be more immersed into the tale because of how bad you feel, because you killed a kid. This sort of scenario enhances the games effect, which is enough of a reason as to why it SHOULD be there.
tying into one of the points you made tho, Bethesda desperately needs to work on making their npc's actually feel somewhat believable. they're entirely shallow hollow and empty beings. which, is why i feel nothing when i kill any of them. killing is wrong in general, but its "considered ok" (skyrim or saint's row, right?)
that's because we do not register these npc's as ppl, because they just arent remotely realistic enough (majority of games) or because we accept that we are playing a role with our character. if u decide to go into skyrim ala Voldemort (however u spell that shizzle) or some other evil fantasy a hole, then its a tad ridiculous to be unable to do something like wipe out a town.
I say at the very least, find a way to deal with it if it makes u squamish game companies. When i killed lil girl's parents as an evil dude in riverwood, or whatever the crappy first town was called, (the blacksmith)it was quite off putting to come back days/weeks/longer later, see the girl fine n wanderin around, parents bodies still chillin in the home, and listen to her dialogue which indicated she was mildly annoyed with me. that spells weakness, and if they dont want to add some code that has her move in with her uncle, then dont make them the highlander.

Also, major respect for your Dead island thoughts, what a flaming pile

 

[TEBrown52]

I think that boundaries have to be set. For some reason as the human species we take pleasure in taking things to its limit to see what happens to use/them/it what have you... Think of all the you teenagers/young adults that you know or knew consuming alcohol to an extreme at some point to see how much they could handle. What I am trying to say is that this is a boundary set up so we are not asking for something potentially more horrific then murdering children... It does not matter where murdering children fall on your "horrific" scale.

 

[Teague Stockton]

Pretty sure there are rainbow ponies Yahtzee, just putting it out there

 

[viranimus]

What is wrong with you people?

Personally, Its because I am an evil hate filled prick who understands that video game NPCs exist for no other reason than to torment, torture and outright destroy. Games allow me to vent the innate desire to end someone just because I didnt like the color of his moustache without consequence. That way when I am forced to endure the real world It gives me the resolve to endure the unadulterated stupidity and aggravation of having to deal with the public without having to bottle up my rage into a tiny ball in the pit of my stomach that eventually becomes uncontrollable and shatters in an orgy of blood and death.


Why on earth would you want to play a game just so you can be the same prototypical good guy archtype that your forced to comply to in real life. Video games are a form of escapism, and allow us to experience what it is to do things that we would never try or even want to do in real life .

 

[Archaenus]

Well it's good to see that there's a decent voice of reason on the subject, good to know I'm not the only one who thought it was just weird. I thought the whole point of a game is to get away from mimicking real life and to give you some form of entertainment for a while. I pretty much have to agree with Yahtzee that there's too much "realism" with the whole tidal wave of military shooters that there are; and that doesn't make it 'more fun', all my favourite games don't focus on the fact that given the universal freedom of the game, I can go shooting babies out of cannons or raping dogs......

 

[elvor0]

Funny enough I seem to remember you complaining about NOT being able to kill children in a game yourself Mr Crowshaw. Fable 2 i think it was, Saying something about "So much for total freedom ey?" "Suddenly we're getting off-message" I don't think it so much that children are the only ones you can't kill, but more that children are the only ones who can't die. If I can kill everything else and everything else can kill everything else, why do the kids get a free pass? And I doubt people would mind so such but it seems that the kids have become aware of their invulnerably in almost every game they are in and won't stop taunting the player about it.

But you won't be happy until someone makes a mod that allows you marry Barbas will you?

To be fair, Fable has always bragged about it's freedom of choice and blah, blah, blah. I think it was more a case of Yahtzee ragging on all the Molyneux Hype Speak.

Speaking of Fable, I remember a whole bunch of people were bitching about the dog dying in Fable 2 to the point that Lionhead had to add a DLC patch where you could bring the stupid mutt back. Now we have Skyrim and we're getting "invincible children ruins my immersion".

I guess my question is, would someone make a patch to make killing dogs okay?

Yes...that was because the dog was a core game mechanic, it was impossible to get a lot of the loot without him, if he just helped you in combat, I would agree with you, but he was integral to finding dig spots and other various things.

Edit: aaaand I've just noticed that was a massive necro post >< Damn you related content!

 

[minimacker]

The children of Skyrim. It's almost like they're taunting you with their immortality. (No, I'm not playing with a killable-kids mod. Yet.)

"Oh, look. Another wanderer here to lick my fathers boots."
"I thought adventurers were supposed to look tough."
"You're new around here, so I'll go easy on you."
"You don't look so tough, I bet I could take you."

There's no dialogue option of telling them that you're the God Damn Batman Dragonborn and that you can hurl them off a cliff with nothing but your voice if you so wanted to.

But no, they know they're immortal and they're going to spend every second of it shoving it to your face.
I'm not surprised some people said "Fuck it!" and modded it in.